I took you saying that since one of the main goals in the constitution is to secure our borders - you meant that we should only pay to do so. You didn't say one of our main goals was to have a Navy twice as large as the next Navy, etc.

Originally posted by mgk920

"Speak softly and carry a BIG stick". It is the most effective and respected form of diplomacy of all), but part of that 'defending the borders' and ensuring security every now and then does mean having to take preemptive action far away to prevent truly bad guys from wrecking havoc closer in.

See this is different than defending our borders. I respect the concept, but I don't agree with the application. Do we start a war out of fear? Do we start a war out of respect for what someone might do? Do we start a war to make sure some country becomes a democracy? Or do we just defend our borders? I think until we have our financial house in order, we cannot afford to do much more than defend our borders.

Originally posted by mgk920

OTOH, I also realize that military action is sometimes the only course that is appropriate for the situation and for that reason, when it is needed must be done in such a way as to *WIN* and *WIN ONLY*. For that it is critical that the military be able to do that. Anything less would be a total and ruinous waste. And yes, a strong military is a real dis-incentive for bad guys to do bad things to us.

I completely agree with you that sometimes there is no choice. In the wars that we fight these days, the size of our military does not dis-incentivize people from starting war with us. They don't even call it war. These people are not going to stop attacking us, because we attack them. Although Diplomacy doesn't work with terrorists, it does with countries that aide and abet them. This is where we should be investing.

Originally posted by mgk920

I have never understood that, seeing some judges rule one way when the text of the law and/or Constitution clearly states the direct opposite - and there is virtually zero unambiguous text in the USA's Constitution. And it is one of the World's shortest national Constitutions as measured in number of words, too.

Parts of some states' Constitutions, as well as many federal, state and local laws, are certainly otherwise and do need clarification.

My take isn't that the Constitution isn't clear on what it says. I just don't agree that we should not evolve as a country because our framers didn't foresee the problems that we face today. You can say that they put in parameters to help figure out how we should deal with it, but the constitution is old. We have a new society, and a COMPLETELY different world than 200+ years ago. Why should we have to be a static nation? Because things were better back then? Slavery, woman's rights, African American rights, interracial marriage rights were all outlawed at some point - and now are seen as not only reasonable things, but essential to our liberty and freedom. Gay rights will be yet another issue that in 10 years we look back and say how on earth did we not allow two people who love each other to marry? How did we discriminate so badly?

Our constitution should live with our society. If we mess up (prohibition), we correct it. I don't like the idea that we live by what was created 200+ years ago, and just accept that it is best for our lives today. Just my personal view.

A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

...We have a new society, and a COMPLETELY different world than 200+ years ago. Why should we have to be a static nation? Because things were better back then?...

Our constitution should live with our society. If we mess up (prohibition), we correct it. I don't like the idea that we live by what was created 200+ years ago, and just accept that it is best for our lives today. Just my personal view.

I think you may be missing a key aspect of conservative thought on this, that perhaps isn't being expressed very well. Human nature hasn't changed. Society has, but we're still capable of the same horrible things we've done in the past as a society because of this. Social progress is never a guarantee. The Founders knew this, just as they knew and anticipated that we weren't going to be, and aren't, static as a nation. The Constitution, even interpreting it literally, doesn't require us to be a static nation. In essence it takes the principles of human freedom rationally explained in the Declaration of Independence, and applies them to a form of government. For things that do change, such as the issues of prohibition, women's rights, and slavery like you mentioned, we have the ability to amend the Constitution to reflect such changes. As long as human nature hasn't changed, it's still a good document as written. If the form of government does not work, or if there are ever vast leaps in human evolution, that negate the premises of the document, there's also nothing preventing another Constitutional convention. It's even happened before (albeit not since 1787). You would be hard-pressed to find any objective, reasonable person who, after a thorough Constitutional study, believes there is a need for this yet.

......
I have never understood that, seeing some judges rule one way when the text of the law and/or Constitution clearly states the direct opposite - and there is virtually zero unambiguous text in the USA's Constitution.
....

Mike

It is not that the Constitution is unambiguous. The issues that need to be placed in the framework of the constitution are what is ambiguous. It is not that hard to understand. A legal case is ambiguous to start with, or it would not land in court. It's a thousands of years old principal that there would be no dispute if the issue was clear.

Since you have a document that changes rarely combined with a modern set of disputes, the unclear issue must be placed in the fabric of the constitution (the dispute ALWAYS comes AFTER the law attempting to clarify an issue).

Ambiguity sneaks in over time as well. There is nothing in the constitution about cars, but they exist, require regulation, and have to fit into the framework of the constitution. How does this work? Partially through the Commerce Claus, but also in many other places, like how does search and seizure work with traffic stops among MANY different issues.

What do you not understand about that process?

I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

My take isn't that the Constitution isn't clear on what it says. I just don't agree that we should not evolve as a country because our framers didn't foresee the problems that we face today. You can say that they put in parameters to help figure out how we should deal with it, but the constitution is old. We have a new society, and a COMPLETELY different world than 200+ years ago. Why should we have to be a static nation? Because things were better back then? Slavery, woman's rights, African American rights, interracial marriage rights were all outlawed at some point - and now are seen as not only reasonable things, but essential to our liberty and freedom. Gay rights will be yet another issue that in 10 years we look back and say how on earth did we not allow two people who love each other to marry? How did we discriminate so badly?

Our constitution should live with our society. If we mess up (prohibition), we correct it. I don't like the idea that we live by what was created 200+ years ago, and just accept that it is best for our lives today. Just my personal view.

Well, that is why the framers had the extreme foresight to include Article. V. EVERYTHING that you cited in those two paragraphs were addressed via that process.

But once things are written down via that process, that is how it is to be played.

One example that I like to cite in a current issue here in Wisconsin - whether or not to require voters to prove their identity and eligibility to vote in an election. I see nothing in either the Wisconsin state nor US Constitutions that prevents poll workers from requiring that voters show proof of identity and eligibility. - HOWEVER - under the terms of the USA Constitution, Amendment XXIV (outlawed Poll Taxes - nobody is ineligible to vote due to reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax, thus tax scofflaws can vote, even if the penalties are felonies which otherwise render those people ineligible), if showing an ID card would be required to vote, the ID *MUST* be issued free of charge. OTOH, of one wants to add proof of driving privileges to that card, then the state MAY charge for that part, but if the card is only a non-driving ID for allowing voting, it MUST be *free*.

Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia

IAmbiguity sneaks in over time as well. There is nothing in the constitution about cars, but they exist, require regulation, and have to fit into the framework of the constitution. How does this work? Partially through the Commerce Claus, but also in many other places, like how does search and seizure work with traffic stops among MANY different issues.

What do you not understand about that process?

That is where the 10th Amendment, the commerce clause and the 'Full Faith and Credit' clauses come into play.

The framers were *BRILLIANT* in that they came of with a definite set of rules - but written with the flexibility to be usable for advances that were unthought of in 1787. Federally regulating true 'Commerce' between the states, but not specifying the methods of conveying that commerce. States granting licenses to operate those vehicles of commerce, but federal involvement under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to ensure that the state actions granting (and revoking) those licenses are recognized by all of the other states. Etc.

........
The framers were *BRILLIANT* in that they came of with a definite set of rules - but written with the flexibility to be usable for advances that were unthought of in 1787. Federally regulating true 'Commerce' between the states, but not specifying the methods of conveying that commerce. States granting licenses to operate those vehicles of commerce, but federal involvement under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to ensure that the state actions granting (and revoking) those licenses are recognized by all of the other states. Etc.

Mike

This is where you are missing the point. I mentioned the Commerce Claus, so big woop. The real issues that became muddled come to issues of what in your car could be searched when a person was pulled over. Nothing in the US Constitution outwardly addressed those kinds of issues.

In effect, the SCOTUS eventually had to figure out where such issues should fit. You don't seem to understand that as per usual.

Eventually, after much regulation, they figured out whereabouts in the constitution such issues were placed.

The Constitution is not law so much as it is a method of determining structural jurisdiction of where subject mater is organized. As evidenced by the fact there are thousands more laws than there are articles to the Constitution. It's the SCOTUS job to figure out how to interpret where an argument is located in that structure. Since an argument may touch multiple articles of the Constitution at once, we are going to experience disappointment in the form of not getting what we want on occasion.

Roe v. Wade, like the decision or not, was decided for personal freedom. Very much similar to the very recent 2nd amendment decision. Do people have to like how they were decided? No. But they were decided "Based on the Constitution", or your whole argument the forefathers were brilliant falls apart.

I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

One example that I like to cite in a current issue here in Wisconsin - whether or not to require voters to prove their identity and eligibility to vote in an election. I see nothing in either the Wisconsin state nor US Constitutions that prevents poll workers from requiring that voters show proof of identity and eligibility. - HOWEVER - under the terms of the USA Constitution, Amendment XXIV (outlawed Poll Taxes - nobody is ineligible to vote due to reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax, thus tax scofflaws can vote, even if the penalties are felonies which otherwise render those people ineligible), if showing an ID card would be required to vote, the ID *MUST* be issued free of charge. OTOH, of one wants to add proof of driving privileges to that card, then the state MAY charge for that part, but if the card is only a non-driving ID for allowing voting, it MUST be *free*.Mike

Be carefull in citing this. This county has a long and nasty history of coming up with creative ways to keep people from voting, specifically minorities. I think this is real fear with the showing a form of ID. Conservatives love to cite voter fraud as a reason they lost an election. Further, it tends to discourage poor and minority voters. These groups largely don't vote Republican.

Be carefull in citing this. This county has a long and nasty history of coming up with creative ways to keep people from voting, specifically minorities. I think this is real fear with the showing a form of ID. Conservatives love to cite voter fraud as a reason they lost an election. Further, it tends to discourage poor and minority voters. These groups largely don't vote Republican.

Its time for a single, nationwide ID card the size of a standard credit card, RFID chiped, hologramed, and issued by a Federal Office or by states with the authority of the Federal Government. FREE! At Federal Government expense.

Don't have a Federal ID? no job. Hire someone to work for you, and you don't register them within 48 hours? Boss man goes to jail for a couple decades. Its a passport, drivers license, and is traceable by all levels of law enforcement on a single system.

Teabagers would refuse to do it, so they could no longer vote irresponsibly!

THE TIME HAS COME!

I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

Its time for a single, nationwide ID card the size of a standard credit card, RFID chiped, hologramed, and issued by a Federal Office or by states with the authority of the Federal Government. FREE! At Federal Government expense.

Don't have a Federal ID? no job. Hire someone to work for you, and you don't register them within 48 hours? Boss man goes to jail for a couple decades. Its a passport, drivers license, and is traceable by all levels of law enforcement on a single system.

Teabagers would refuse to do it, so they could no longer vote irresponsibly!

THE TIME HAS COME!

Always tryin' to sow more dystopia. Man, your screen name fits you like a glove.

Be carefull in citing this. This county has a long and nasty history of coming up with creative ways to keep people from voting, specifically minorities. I think this is real fear with the showing a form of ID. Conservatives love to cite voter fraud as a reason they lost an election. Further, it tends to discourage poor and minority voters. These groups largely don't vote Republican.

Unlike you, I am apparently one of the more 'advanced' USAians who is trying his darndest to live in a post-racial society. I abhor ANYTHING that favors or disfavors anyone vs. another for factors beyond his/her abilities - including so-called 'affirmative action' programs, which are nothing more than thinly-veiled attempts at racism - favoring one citizen over another for no reason other than skin color and other related accidents of birth.

The USA is about equality of OPPORTUNITIES, *NOT* equality of OUTCOMES.

Well, that is why the framers had the extreme foresight to include Article. V. EVERYTHING that you cited in those two paragraphs were addressed via that process.

But once things are written down via that process, that is how it is to be played.

Article V is a weak answer to the problem. Sure it gives you the ability to alter the old structure, but the way that it allow it to happen is flawed.

I don't believe that we should have to deal with human rights issues through the constitition, they should just be granted. Why should we have to adjust the document to abolish slavery? Why shouldn't we just create a 21st century document that actually works for our world today? Keep the principles, but update to the realities of today. Let's consider it our country's comp plan. It needs to be reviewed every century or so.

I have stated this before, but when a document has only been updated 27 times in 200 years, you either are not accepting the changes of times, or are dealing with it in other ways. In this case, the indirect problems caused by our refusal to update the constitution is the muddled Supreme Court decisions that create the law we live by.

Originally posted by mgk920

Unlike you, I am apparently one of the more 'advanced' USAians who is trying his darndest to live in a post-racial society. I abhor ANYTHING that favors or disfavors anyone vs. another for factors beyond his/her abilities - including so-called 'affirmative action' programs, which are nothing more than thinly-veiled attempts at racism - favoring one citizen over another for no reason other than skin color and other related accidents of birth.

The USA is about equality of OPPORTUNITIES, *NOT* equality of OUTCOMES.

And yes, I am very well versed in the reasons for the 24th Amendment.

Mike

I too try to live in a post-racial world... too bad such a world doesn't exist.

A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

I don't believe that we should have to deal with human rights issues through the constitition, they should just be granted. Why should we have to adjust the document to abolish slavery? Why shouldn't we just create a 21st century document that actually works for our world today? Keep the principles, but update to the realities of today. Let's consider it our country's comp plan. It needs to be reviewed every century or so.

You had to adjust the document to abolish slavery because the practice was officially condoned (or rather, it was indicated that not all people were free) in the original document through the 3/5 Compromise, to say nothing of allowing states the right to allow it through the 10th Amendment. Hence the 13th-15th Amendments.

Why do you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater? The Constitution works, can be amended when need be, even though the process of which tempers the will of societal trends with protections for individual rights so no one group, person, or ideology can consolidate or obtain absolute power. All in all, that's a good thing. Political objectives of both political parties and their ideologies are worth working out through the process that maintains the present Constitution's espoused principles. Furthermore, it does not limit any political goals, within reason. I don't believe that has changed yet, and like I noted earlier, it's hard to find constitutional and US political scholars outside of radical or revolutionary movements who believe otherwise.

Its time for a single, nationwide ID card the size of a standard credit card, RFID chiped, hologramed, and issued by a Federal Office or by states with the authority of the Federal Government. FREE! At Federal Government expense.

Don't have a Federal ID? no job. Hire someone to work for you, and you don't register them within 48 hours? Boss man goes to jail for a couple decades. Its a passport, drivers license, and is traceable by all levels of law enforcement on a single system.

Teabagers would refuse to do it, so they could no longer vote irresponsibly!

THE TIME HAS COME!

I agree wholeheartedly. It works well for many other countries and the apocalypse didn't happen by instituting this requirement.

"He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?"Jeremiah 22:16

I agree wholeheartedly. It works well for many other countries and the apocalypse didn't happen by instituting this requirement.

Let's kill all state sovereignty while we're at it, ditch a federal system, and create a unitarian national government, with states merely transitioning to regional administrative divisions of said national government. There'd be no more dumb anti-gay-marriage crap, no more Arizona-like fiascos, no more electoral college and all its hubbub, no more oddities in planning, no more issues with disproportionate representation in the Senate.

Come on, y'all... the Real ID Act was an acceptable compromise that, once it finishes its way through the courts for the handful of states refusing to administer it, meets purposes you described without sacrificing that state sovereignty.

Let's kill all state sovereignty while we're at it, ditch a federal system, and create a unitarian national government, with states merely transitioning to regional administrative divisions of said national government. There'd be no more dumb anti-gay-marriage crap, no more Arizona-like fiascos, no more electoral college and all its hubbub, no more oddities in planning, no more issues with disproportionate representation in the Senate.

Come on, y'all... the Real ID Act was an acceptable compromise that, once it finishes its way through the courts for the handful of states refusing to administer it, meets purposes you described without sacrificing that state sovereignty.

Federalism has been alive and well for a very long time. Nobody said anything about killing state sovereignty. U.S. passports are issued by the federal government as are social security cards, tax ID numbers, and immigration documents. REAL ID was a stop gap measure because the drivers license/state ID card is the only wide scale document that is acceptable as identification since there is no national card and passports are voluntary. Also states are not required to participate in REAL ID, but if they choose not to their documents cannot be used as federal ID. With REAL ID you are required to assert your right to be in the US whether you are a citizen or an immigrant and you have to provide your SSN number as well. It's not reinventing the wheel in any way, shape, or form-just putting it all on a single card that is much less likely to be forged. "They" already know everything there is to know about you anyways...stop pretending they don't.

"He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?"Jeremiah 22:16

Federalism has been alive and well for a very long time. Nobody said anything about killing state sovereignty. U.S. passports are issued by the federal government as are social security cards, tax ID numbers, and immigration documents. REAL ID was a stop gap measure because the drivers license/state ID card is the only wide scale document that is acceptable as identification since there is no national card and passports are voluntary. Also states are not required to participate in REAL ID, but if they choose not to their documents cannot be used as federal ID. With REAL ID you are required to assert your right to be in the US whether you are a citizen or an immigrant and you have to provide your SSN number as well. It's not reinventing the wheel in any way, shape, or form-just putting it all on a single card that is much less likely to be forged. "They" already know everything there is to know about you anyways...stop pretending they don't.

I'm not disputing that at all. In fact, the whole argument about searchable by law enforcement in one system is really weak. I'm just wondering how a national ID would serve any Constitutionally-valid purpose? Interstate commerce? The argument could be made, perhaps. But that's about it, really.

All the other things you mentioned are devices behind Constitutionally delineated powers of the federal government - taxes, immigration/foreign relations (i.e. passports), etc. Everything else is that Duke suggested a national ID for are states' jurisdictions. Now, if the states wanted to voluntarily opt into a national ID system, or even did so outside of the feds, that'd be one thing. But let's face it, that won't happen.

I'm not disputing that at all. In fact, the whole argument about searchable by law enforcement in one system is really weak. I'm just wondering how a national ID would serve any Constitutionally-valid purpose? Interstate commerce? The argument could be made, perhaps. But that's about it, really.

All the other things you mentioned are devices behind Constitutionally delineated powers of the federal government - taxes, immigration/foreign relations (i.e. passports), etc. Everything else is that Duke suggested a national ID for are states' jurisdictions. Now, if the states wanted to voluntarily opt into a national ID system, or even did so outside of the feds, that'd be one thing. But let's face it, that won't happen.

Isn't your social security number used for anything under the sun? All large employers now must run every new hire's SSN through a verification system to see that the person is eligible to work in the US, small employers are exempt from the check. The SSN card is a joke and so easy to forge, additionally the logarithm that determines one's SSN is not exactly a state secret. Although it wasn't meant to be an ID it is THE de facto ID for all of us (do you know your driver's license number w/o looking at it? bet you know your SSN in your sleep!). Each state issues its own driver's licenses...other states reciprocally agree to recognized that you qualify to drive. What's wrong with police sharing information across state lines...what do you they do when you get stopped out of state? Your license gets called in to your home state and the ticket reported in most cases. States routinely share information in order to collect on child support orders or state tax arrears. What exactly are you giving up that you haven't already?

"He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?"Jeremiah 22:16

Isn't your social security number used for anything under the sun? All large employers now must run every new hire's SSN through a verification system to see that the person is eligible to work in the US, small employers are exempt from the check. The SSN card is a joke and so easy to forge, additionally the logarithm that determines one's SSN is not exactly a state secret. Although it wasn't meant to be an ID it is THE de facto ID for all of us (do you know your driver's license number w/o looking at it? bet you know your SSN in your sleep!). Each state issues its own driver's licenses...other states reciprocally agree to recognized that you qualify to drive. What's wrong with police sharing information across state lines...what do you they do when you get stopped out of state? Your license gets called in to your home state and the ticket reported in most cases. States routinely share information in order to collect on child support orders or state tax arrears. What exactly are you giving up that you haven't already?

Nothing. That was my point. A national ID is not needed, plus there would be no Constitutionally valid purpose for it like there are with other forms of ID used for national programs.

Also, I do know my DL# by memory. And my wife's SSN and DL#. And my father's. Just a weird thing for me, and it's come in handy a lot, actually.

Always tryin' to sow more dystopia. Man, your screen name fits you like a glove.

I call troll.

I actually do believe it is time for a national ID card. Like I described. How I stated it was tongue & cheek.

Good job Kjelsadeq! Good arguments!

Mostly, the Real ID or "Federal ID" or whatever you want to call it does/could replace the SSN as the primary number you use for many reasons. It also DOES serve as a more effective form of immigration control, law enforcement, and standardization of information between the states.

TO "The Constitution works, can be amended when need be, even though the process of which tempers the will of societal trends with protections for individual rights so no one group, person, or ideology can consolidate or obtain absolute power. All in all, that's a good thing. Political objectives of both political parties and their ideologies are worth working out through the process that maintains the present Constitution's espoused principles. Furthermore, it does not limit any political goals, within reason. I don't believe that has changed yet, and like I noted earlier, it's hard to find constitutional and US political scholars outside of radical or revolutionary movements who believe otherwisee."

I agree with your above statement completely.

Last edited by Duke Of Dystopia; 15 Jul 2010 at 12:05 AM.

I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

Let's kill all state sovereignty while we're at it, ditch a federal system, and create a unitarian national government, with states merely transitioning to regional administrative divisions of said national government. .

Why do you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater? The Constitution works, can be amended when need be, even though the process of which tempers the will of societal trends with protections for individual rights so no one group, person, or ideology can consolidate or obtain absolute power. All in all, that's a good thing. Political objectives of both political parties and their ideologies are worth working out through the process that maintains the present Constitution's espoused principles. Furthermore, it does not limit any political goals, within reason. I don't believe that has changed yet, and like I noted earlier, it's hard to find constitutional and US political scholars outside of radical or revolutionary movements who believe otherwise.

I don't disagree with your main point. The constitution is an amazing document, and has done a lot for our people over time. I just don't agree that we should be living based on a document that was created X number of years ago. I like the concept, just don't like the application.

Originally posted by TexanOkie

Let's kill all state sovereignty while we're at it, ditch a federal system, and create a unitarian national government, with states merely transitioning to regional administrative divisions of said national government.

It isn't like you to make sky is falling claims, based on no proof.

Originally posted by TexanOkie

I'm just wondering how a national ID would serve any Constitutionally-valid purpose? Interstate commerce?

See you prove my point about the constitution. You are looking at how it can fit in a document that wasn't worried about the problem we have today. Interstate commerce is the catch all for many problems.

---------------------

Personally, I am not scare of having a national ID system. I do not find it as a loss of freedom. I am not worried about the government following me, or knowing what I am doing. Mainly because I am not doing anything illegal. I like the idea of having all my data in one place - as long as it is protected. If you have ever created a database, you know that having ONE reference number/name/whatever allows for all the other data to relate to it. Multiple systems can interact and you can look at information from any place. It all sounds like a way to make things more efficient and save us money to me.

A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

Just for reference, the following was meant to be completely tongue-in-cheek, while many of you have responded as though I actually felt how the defeatist sarcasm sounds. Generally, if I use smilies, I'm not being serious. If anything, was hyperbole taken to "epic" levels.

Originally posted by TexanOkie

Let's kill all state sovereignty while we're at it, ditch a federal system, and create a unitarian national government, with states merely transitioning to regional administrative divisions of said national government. There'd be no more dumb anti-gay-marriage crap, no more Arizona-like fiascos, no more electoral college and all its hubbub, no more oddities in planning, no more issues with disproportionate representation in the Senate.

Unlike you, I am apparently one of the more 'advanced' USAians who is trying his darndest to live in a post-racial society.

No offense intended to you, because I believe you mean it. But... what you just said exactly mirrors some of the stuff I hear from people I KNOW are racist. There is a clear history of racists changing their tactics from outright racism to this argument.

Part of their challenge, however -- especially in handling broader debates about what they "are" -- is that there isn't a single Tea Party that speaks for all tea party activists. Rather, there are dozens of national and local organizations that loosely coordinate and all emerged in opposition to Wall Street bailouts that occurred under Presidents Bush and Obama and what they perceive as the Obama Administration's efforts to expand the role of government.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) filed paperwork on Thursday to create a House Tea Party Caucus, which she will chair.

At least maybe now, everyone can see the loons get together. Or maybe, just maybe they will actually have to tone down the random rhetoric and actually stand for something. I don't have hope for that though.

A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

One thing that I've always wondered - just what IS the left's ultimate goal? It seems like they are trying to have the government and its ruling elites take over and run everything (health care and banking/finance in the USA now) and wasting no time and effort to badmouth and try to destroy anyone who tries to oppose them - but then what?

I can't sense any logical progression from there - other than to see the results of such activities in other places and times in history (nearly ALL of which have been total disasters).

One thing that I've always wondered - just what IS the left's ultimate goal? It seems like they are trying to have the government and its ruling elites take over and run everything (health care and banking/finance in the USA now) and wasting no time and effort to badmouth and try to destroy anyone who tries to oppose them - but then what?

I can't sense any logical progression from there - other than to see the results of such activities in other places and times in history (nearly ALL of which have been total disasters).

Mike

One could ask the same of the right. Unfortunately it's generally the fringes on either side that dominate the debate and agenda at hand dragging the rest behind.

"He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?"Jeremiah 22:16